HYDRAULICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the management in all these writ petitions. The writ petitions are filed against the order passed by the first respondent/Labour Court, Pondicherry dated 11.3.2010 in I.A. No. 71 of 2007 in ID. No. 32 of 2005 (L), I.A. No. 77 of 2007 in I.D. No. 39 of 2005 (L), I.A. No. 90 of 2007 in I.D. No. 31 of 2005 (L), I.A. No. 75 of 2007 in I.D. No. 37 of 2005 (L), I.A. No. 81 of 2007 in I.D. No. 43 of 2005 (L), I.A. No. 91 of 2007 in I.D. No. 45 of 2005 (L), I.A. No. 80 of 2007 in I.D. No. 42 of 2005 (L), I.A. No. 76 of 2007 in I.D. No. 38 of 2005 (L), I.A. No. 73 of 2007 in I.D. No. 34 of 2005 (L), I.A. No. 79 of 2007 in I.D. No. 41 of 2005 (L), I.A. No. 82 of 2007 in I.D. No. 9 of 2006 (L), I.A. No/74 of 2007 in I.D. No. 35 of 2007 (L), I.A. No. 78 of 2007 in I.D. No. 40 of 2007 (L) and I.A. No. 72 of 2007 in I.D. No. 33 of 2005 (L) respectively.

(2.) It is the case of the management that the second respondent/workman in each of the writ petitions raised industrial disputes regarding their non-employment under section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and they also claimed to set aside their order of dismissal and for a further direction to pass an award reinstating them with back-wages and other benefits. The claim statements filed by the workmen were registered as various industrial disputes and notice was issued to the petitioner/management

(3.) The petitioner/management filed detailed counter statements. In the counter statements, apart from justifying the disciplinary action taken by them, including conducting of a proper domestic enquiry they also reserved their right to adduce additional evidence, if necessary, to prove the charges before the Labour Court and to justify the action.